MRO Thread

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: MRO Thread

I think Dangerfield will get off.

The bump was not to the head as it was a clash of heads.

I know he chose to bump so the result is his responsibility, but it is Dangerfield.

The tribunal option is simply to allow the MRO to bypass a decision.

Yes it was incidental head contact but there are 2 factors working against him:
1. He chose to bump instead of tackle
2. He left the ground to perform the bump. This usually means high contact will be made.

Last season, Danger gets off no question even though those 2 factors mean he shouldn't.
But with all the renewed attention around concussions this season there's no way the AFL can let him off. He should get 3 weeks. Because it's Danger he'll most likely get 1.

[comrade]

Re: MRO Thread

Yes it was incidental head contact but there are 2 factors working against him:
1. He chose to bump instead of tackle
2. He left the ground to perform the bump. This usually means high contact will be made.

Last season, Danger gets off no question even though those 2 factors mean he shouldn't.
But with all the renewed attention around concussions this season there's no way the AFL can let him off. He should get 3 weeks. Because it's Danger he'll most likely get 1.

Yep, AFL is so optics focussed, they won't let Danger off scot free but because of his name he also won't be getting the maximum 3 week penalty. I agree that the tribunal will find him guilty but will downsize the penalty to 1 week.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: MRO Thread

Yes it was incidental head contact but there are 2 factors working against him:
1. He chose to bump instead of tackle
2. He left the ground to perform the bump. This usually means high contact will be made.

Last season, Danger gets off no question even though those 2 factors mean he shouldn't.
But with all the renewed attention around concussions this season there's no way the AFL can let him off. He should get 3 weeks. Because it's Danger he'll most likely get 1.

Danger should have actually got his 3 week suspension in the GF.

His raised elbow to Vlaustin had much more intent but was not even cited.

[EasternWest]

Re: MRO Thread

Danger should have actually got his 3 week suspension in the GF.

His raised elbow to Vlaustin had much more intent but was not even cited.

Spot on.

Knocked Vlaustin out cold with an intentional raised elbow. Unlike most of this board I like Dangerfield, but he got away with that one. He can't get away with this one.

2 weeks.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: MRO Thread

Spot on.

Knocked Vlaustin out cold with an intentional raised elbow. Unlike most of this board I like Dangerfield, but he got away with that one. He can't get away with this one.

2 weeks.

ewww you like Dangerfield? Let me guess, you like chips under your parma too right?

[EasternWest]

Re: MRO Thread

ewww you like Dangerfield? Let me guess, you like chips under your parma too right?

You, me. Yarraville nets.

[soupman]

Re: MRO Thread

2 weeks. Serious enough to be a statement, but not too harsh

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

2 weeks. Serious enough to be a statement, but not too harsh

I think that will be the outcome.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: MRO Thread

You, me. Yarraville nets.

You’re on. But I’m grabbing an HSP beforehand.

[GVGjr]

Re: MRO Thread

2 weeks. Serious enough to be a statement, but not too harsh

You might be right but I think it's a week underdone. The week the competition brings in an injury sub particularly because of concussion, a player is knocked out and will very likely miss a couple of weeks himself. The first suspension sets the benchmark for the balance of the season.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: MRO Thread

You might be right but I think it's a week underdone. The week the competition brings in an injury sub particularly because of concussion, a player is knocked out and will very likely miss a couple of weeks himself. The first suspension sets the benchmark for the balance of the season.

I bet the AFL were spewing that the first opportunity they had to make an example wasn’t with a peasant but none other than the king himself.

[Ozza]

Re: MRO Thread

If the AFL is at all serious about minimising concussion in the game - then he has to get 3. He had other options open to him and chose to collect Kelly with force and with a bump.

The incident in the grand final was completely different and didn't deserve suspension. This one, is cleaning up a player who was vulnerable as he was kicking the ball, and he could have gone lower and got the torso, or he could have tackled.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

If the AFL is at all serious about minimising concussion in the game - then he has to get 3. He had other options open to him and chose to collect Kelly with force and with a bump.

The incident in the grand final was completely different and didn't deserve suspension. This one, is cleaning up a player who was vulnerable as he was kicking the ball, and he could have gone lower and got the torso, or he could have tackled.

there are rules on the bump and will depend on whether the grading is severe (3 weeks), or unintentional (2 weeks ). MRO has graded it severe, so will be up to tribunal.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

MOST MATCHES MISSED THROUGH SUSPENSION SINCE 2010


59 Geelong*
57 Richmond
56 Hawthorn
53 West Coast
52 St Kilda
51 Essendon
50 Melbourne
46 Fremantle
43 North Melbourne
40 Brisbane, Port Adelaide
36 Carlton
35 Gold Coast
29 Greater Western Sydney
28 Collingwood
26 Western Bulldogs
22 Adelaide
18 Sydney

[1eyedog]

Re: MRO Thread

You might be right but I think it's a week underdone. The week the competition brings in an injury sub particularly because of concussion, a player is knocked out and will very likely miss a couple of weeks himself. The first suspension sets the benchmark for the balance of the season.

Agreed I reckon it will be 3.